The deepwater oil well gushing out of control off the coast of Louisiana is a political, economic and environmental disaster. Even as efforts to staunch the flow are in high gear, there is talk about scaling back national plans for offshore drilling. California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger already has declared his opposition to a plan for off-shore drilling based on ominous television re...

First, I agree this is a disaster and that BP must be held accountable. The cause must be determined as much of any new Gulf drilling will be at these depths (1 mile down) or deeper and we can't have a repeat of this because we are not going to be shutting down 3500 Gulf oil rigs anytime soon. I believe 1/3 of our domestic supply comes out of the Gulf.That said, I find the attitude and rhetoric coming from Obama and Gibbs and others in the administration right on par with their general attitude of demonizing, ridiculing, threatening, and treating BP and "BIG Oil" in a more hostile manner verbally than we treat Iran, N Korea, or the real enemies of the USA. GIbbs actually used the phrase "...keep our boot on the neck of BP..." or something to that affect. Wouldn't we all love to hear that phrase aimed at al Qaida or Iran? Other similar phrases and hostility have been common.We all know that Obama and the left loathe American business and simply see it as a dirty and necessary means to their end of taxes to fund their pet social programs and government expansion. But the open hostility and threats are once again undignified and beneath the office of the POTUS. Blame and casting aspersions are for later at the investigation hearings and congress-critters are more suited to that low-brow attack dog formula. The president is the leader of the nation and all of us. When is he going to realize that and stop the community organizing routine? He needs to show leadership, which he has, but he also has to show restraint because just as he and his followers like to accuse those who disagree with him of rallying emotions on attacks against him, he does the exact same thing by creating strawman arguments and villains and exacerbating existing problems for political gain. He is doing it with the oil spill and with the AZ illegal immigration law.

Peak oil is here.Face it and Go Green...Arrest Rush(kidding)n the twisted world of Rush Limbaugh, this commitment to protecting our environment and endangered species is proof that we blew up the oil rig that is right now ravaging the Gulf of Mexico with a massive oil spill.

In Rush's own blustering words:

"But this bill, the cap-and-trade bill, was strongly criticized by hardcore environmentalist wackos because it supposedly allowed more offshore drilling and nuclear plants, nuclear plant investment. So, since they're sending SWAT teams down there, folks, since they're sending SWAT teams to inspect the other rigs, what better way to head off more oil drilling, nuclear plants, than by blowing up a rig? I'm just noting the timing here." i

Rush's toxic, illogical rant does beg the question, however: Who is responsible for the catastrophe?

Haliburton? Possibly. British Petroleum? Undoubtedly.Bp will pay close to nothing..they wrote the laws,do not Forget!!As the World Burns..Now do you see why corporate rule is BAD??

BP will not be "on the hook" for damages unless culpable for the disaster in a court of law, not in the press.

As a Constitutional law professor, Obama should know that "Innocent until proven guilty" is the law of the land. However, as a Community Organizer, his mantra was "White America and large corporations are guilty . . . period . . . end of discussion". This is no way for the President of our country to act, and certainly not the way that Christians are supposed to act.

By preempting "Due Process" and saying that his administration will "Keep our boot on the throat of BP", just shows the lowly depths that this administration will to

hat is not what America is about and is certainly not what Christians should be about.

The unpreparedness (see link) by the inept Obama regime may lead to a possible environmental disaster which might have been avoided. Will the MSM pick this story up? I doubt they will, unless Bush was still in office.

Peak Oil is a myth. However, we are running out of cheap and easy to produce oil. U.S. government policy has closed vast swaths of land in the US to energy development - where oil, gas, and other energy minerals could be extracted in a much cheaper and safer manner.

World oil demand is expected to rise by about 30% by 2035 (according to the EIA). U.S. demand will rise by about 15%. This is the case even with aggressive deployment of hybrid, plug-in, renewables, and other "green" technologies. In 2010, 97% of our transportation will run on petroleum. In 2035, 90% will run on petroleum. Like it or not, we're dependent on oil for the foreseeable future. We should continue to working on the next generation of energy technologies. But, oil won't be supplanted for many many years.

SO THE ONLY QUESTION IS: Do we develop our own oil resources (offshore, ANWR, oil shale, etc.) or do we let someone else provide our energy for us?

Firstly, Americans must get past this notion that we can ever be independent of foreign sources for oil unless we drastically reduce our consumption of oil. Secondly our regulations must become among the strictest and the most strictly enforced in the world.

jbowen43 wrote:Firstly, Americans must get past this notion that we can ever be independent of foreign sources for oil unless we drastically reduce our consumption of oil. Secondly our regulations must become among the strictest and the most strictly enforced in the world.

First, you're right. America will never be completely energy independent. Oil is a World commodity. However, we should produce more. Why run up massive trade deficits and forego economic growth, jobs, and huge tax revenues if we can produce the stuff right here at home?

Second, we already have the strictest environmental laws in the World - by far. I'd put America's environmental record up against anyone. However, accidents happen. As Sec. Salazar pointed out, there are 30,000 wells in the Gulf - and more being drilled. Over years of production, accidents are inevitable. But, that doesn't mean we should stop producing here.

What I get from the Post editorial is a call to be cautious about being cautious...which multiplies out to either nothing or carelessness.

What I picture is a one mile "riser" consisting of a one-half foot wellhead pipe with a larger shell pipe, the interior between them filled (and just poured in the accident situation) with concrete.

How much, buoyancy factored, does that riser weigh, and with what pressure does that weight bear down on the 30 foot stack of emergency shut-off hydraulic "rams", that aren't now working? One mile of pipe.

So I'm thinking, maybe the rams aren't ramming because that weight and pressure would keep anything beneath it from working.

So this to me would be a counter-fatual contingency machine, something that wasn't ever going to work in deep water.

True or not, we can't drill and pump in mile-deep water if we can't shut the damned thing off, and what I see as the faucet isn't going to do it.

So I would disagree with the Post about being cautious about being cautious. Let's plain be very cautious about new drilling and about platforms now in place.

The percent oil supply calcualtion is slightly off, too. We get a small fraction of our oil from domestic production, and you need to mulitply the gulf contribution times that. Its not big. We can shut it off and not stop the country from moving, if need be.

This is a Bush legacy problem of letting the oil boys and girls have voluntary not mandatory safety regulation. This is (and forget the nonsense from Fox snooxe of an Obama Katrina) a Bush disaster. The Obama administration has already, under Secretary Salazar, dealt with major messes in the Minerals Management Service. They can't fix everything Bush broke simulataneously. At least now the MMS Lakewood Federal Center girls aren't sleeping with the oil boys, and vice versa (pardon the Pun).

No. I say, be uncautious about being cautious about new regulations, about new permits, and about shutting down and retrofitting effective safety quipment.

If there does not exist effective deep water drilling blowout prevention technology, then turn the faucet off.

The Post is right in urging the U.S. not to react in knee-jerk fashion. The risks of offshore drilling are low, but they will never be zero. Every alternative, including conservation, also has risks and costs. We can not eliminate risk. All we can do is try to minimize it, and/or move it somewhere else. Hopefully, the investigation into this disaster will yield some helpful information about how to prevent similar failures in the future, thus reducing the risk.

Some of the posters here are under the delusion that BP will not end up paying for this. BP owns the oil, and by law, the costs of the cleanup. That is why the value of BP stock has dropped about 30 billion dollars in the last two weeks.

So this to me would be a counter-fatual contingency machine, something that wasn't ever going to work in deep water.

"Fatual?" What's that? Is this an invocation to "fatuous?" If so, such seems appropriate regarding this post.

This is a Bush legacy problem of letting the oil boys and girls have voluntary not mandatory safety regulation. This is (and forget the nonsense from Fox snooxe of an Obama Katrina) a Bush disaster. The Obama administration has already, under Secretary Salazar, dealt with major messes in the Minerals Management Service. They can't fix everything Bush broke simulataneously. At least now the MMS Lakewood Federal Center girls aren't sleeping with the oil boys, and vice versa (pardon the Pun).

I am shocked. Shocked that "blame Bush" is the card played. That's never happened before, has it? But how original and inventive.

Pillsbury Doughboy, FAACMP Director of the Norther California Yeast Society, former president of the Manufacturers Icon Association, Retired Associate Puffyman Society, Charter member of the ACA ("Anthropoid Characters of America")

The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money." de Tocqueville. We have arrived at that day.

rhf wrote:Peak Oil is a myth. However, we are running out of cheap and easy to produce oil. U.S. government policy has closed vast swaths of land in the US to energy development - where oil, gas, and other energy minerals could be extracted in a much cheaper and safer manner.

World oil demand is expected to rise by about 30% by 2035 (according to the EIA). U.S. demand will rise by about 15%. This is the case even with aggressive deployment of hybrid, plug-in, renewables, and other "green" technologies. In 2010, 97% of our transportation will run on petroleum. In 2035, 90% will run on petroleum. Like it or not, we're dependent on oil for the foreseeable future. We should continue to working on the next generation of energy technologies. But, oil won't be supplanted for many many years.

SO THE ONLY QUESTION IS: Do we develop our own oil resources (offshore, ANWR, oil shale, etc.) or do we let someone else provide our energy for us?

Peak oil is a myth?

Apparently the law of conservation mass-energy doesn't apply to anything that fuels an H2.

The shoe is on the wrong foot in this comment. Caution should have been excercised before allowing the drilling. "We can prove how safe this is" sounds a bit hollow now, doesn't it?. The technology was untested going in and a system for mitigating the damage is only being developed now that there is a disaster to cope with. Let's reposition the excercise of caution from "after" to "before", shall we?

Dont wait for anyone else to make sure that safety is truly stricter and old well without the remote controlled eemergency shut off switch 's are installed in the other wells around all american coasts.Inland safety needs regulated also.BP has had alot of deaths,but not on the rig.The oil industry does not want to be regulated and will fight tooth and nail,to keep from being regulated by some one like the Army Corp. of Eng.When it threatens the whole country it should be Army.Maybe retrain trusted veterens returning from war to do it,they need good jobs.It seems that the papers dont want safety changes,People have to make the legislators do it,they will be up against the oil companys and they have lots of money.To make regulations is free to taxpayers,why isnt it done,hasnt it been done before?.These wells could be popular if safe,they can be made safe ,our country just doesnt bother to make them so.Norway does.Brazil does.Arnold is smart to take this stance and they can push through regulation.What good does enviromental control do,when this can ruin everything like it has.Hopefully the worst will soon be over,and then people can clean it up and never let it happen again,no matter what,dont let Salazar renig on safety recommendations.You watch they will absolutly freak out,not to cross the oil giants.

It would be good if offshore oil from the Gulf of Mexico helped reduce our dependence on foreign oil from places like Iran. The problem is that the oil that is produced from the Gulf of Mexico is sold on the international market. A larger supply of oil does reduce the price of oil but any country can buy the oil that comes from our backyard.